fayfreethinkers.com

Koch Industries has “become a financial kingpin of climate science denial and clean energy opposition,” spending over $48.5 million since 1997 to fund the climate denial machine, according to an extensive report today by Greenpeace.

Greenpeace Unmasks Koch Industries' Funding of Climate Denial Industry

Brendan DeMelle
Posted: March 30, 2010

Excerpts:

The Greenpeace report reveals how Koch Industries and the foundations under its control spent far more than even ExxonMobil in recent years to fund industry front groups opposed to clean energy and climate policies. Koch spent over half the total amount -nearly $25 million - funding climate denier groups from 2005 to 2008, a period in which Exxon only spent $8.9 million.

Greenpeace’s attempt to lift the veil of secrecy inherent to a private company like Koch Industries is no easy task. Because it remains privately owned, Koch faces few of the disclosure requirements designed to increase transparency among publicly-traded companies.

That intentional secrecy allows Koch Industries, the second-largest privately-held company in the United States, to fly largely below the public’s radar. Few Americans have likely heard of Koch, even though it operates crude oil refineries and pipelines across North America and owns such well-known consumer brands as Dixie cups, Brawny and Quilted Northern paper products, Stainmaster carpet, CoolMax and Lycra.

The company’s founder, Fred Koch, who once earned $5 million building oil refineries in the Soviet Union during Joseph Stalin’s reign, was a co-founder of the libertarian John Birch Society. Charles G. and David H. Koch, two of Fred’s four sons, each now own 42% of the company’s stock. According to 2009 Forbes rankings, the Koch brothers are tied for the 19th-richest person in the world, and for ninth-richest American, each worth between $14 and $16 billion, more than George Soros or the founders of Google.

The Koch brothers use three foundations to spread Koch Industries’ influence, including support for roughly 40 organizations that doubt or downplay climate change or otherwise oppose policy solutions to build a clean energy future. Greenpeace also notes that Koch Industries has been the largest oil and gas industry contributor to electoral campaigns since the 2006 election cycle, and its done its fair share of lobbying as well. During the 2008 elections, Koch Industries contributed over $1.8 million, 88% to Republican candidates. ...

Koch Industries has bankrolled Americans for Prosperity to the tune of over $5 million since 2005. AFP – known primarily for its role in organizing the tea party movement in the U.S. – brought notorious climate denier Lord Christopher Monckton to the Copenhagen climate summit as its guest speaker. Despite Lord Monckton’s reprehensible behavior in Copenhagen – where he repeatedly compared college students advocating for a clean energy future to “Hitler Youth” and “Nazis” – Americans for Prosperity continues to host Monckton at its events in the United States, including a recent appearance in Wisconsin.

While in Wisconsin on AFP’s dime, Monckton booked a side gig at a GOP fundraiser where he described President Barack Obama as a “monster.” ...

Koch was also one of the funders of the 2007 polar bear junk science “study” authored by prominent climate deniers (including Sallie Baliunas, David Legates and Tim Ball) that claimed to prove that polar bear populations were not affected by anthropogenic climate disruption in the Arctic....

Although the paper was thoroughly debunked by actual experts on Arctic sea ice and polar bears, many of the front groups funded by Koch and Exxon rebroadcast the study widely, creating public confusion.

The Greenpeace report notes Koch’s role in funding the Institute for Energy Research, which was behind the Danish study that attacked the viability of wind power. Greenpeace also points out the role that Koch’s web of climate denier groups played in supporting, disseminating and promoting the Spanish study attacking green jobs, including AFP, IER and the Heritage Foundation.

Greenpeace has helped to shed some much-needed light on Koch Industries with this report, providing several case studies, a detailed look at lobbying and campaign expenditures, and other little known facts about the Koch Brothers’ web of front groups.

If you thought you knew everything about anti-science front groups from hearing about ExxonMobil’s efforts over the years, think again. This expose of Koch Industries serves up a heaping pile of unsavory evidence that the climate denial industry is alive and well-funded, even with the scaling back of ExxonMobil’s support.

LINK

***


A bit of background:

"Koch Industries, Inc. (pronounced “coke”) is a private corporation based in Wichita, Kansas with subsidiaries involved in manufacturing, trading and investments. Koch companies are involved in core industries such as commodities trading, petroleum, chemicals, energy, fiber, intermediates and polymers, minerals, fertilizers, pulp and paper, chemical technology equipment, ranching, securities and finance, as well as in other ventures and investments. In 2008 it was the second largest privately held company in the United States (after Cargill) with an annual revenue of about $98 billion.

http://seeker401.wordpress.com/2010/01/ ... tries-inc/

Is this the same Green Peace that is full of anti-science wacco's? I would take anything this organization says with a grain of salt. Not saying they are wrong...just that a lot of ignorance flows through that organization. They are not so much pro-environment as they are anti-corporation. And I mean anti-corporation to the extreme. At first glance I would suspect this is more of there anti-corporate bullshit. I would, however, be interested in hearing about it if someone has time to investigate it. I mean the story is plausible...and if it weren't for the fact that it is GreenPeace I probably would not be questioning it's validity.

Here is an example of GreenPeace bullmalarky:
http://southasia.oneworld.net/todayshea ... fe-gm-food

kevin

kwlyon wrote:Is this the same Green Peace that is full of anti-science wacco's?

DAR
Do you see any anti-science in the above? Please point it out.

I would take anything this organization says with a grain of salt. Not saying they are wrong...

DAR
Well make up your mind.

just that a lot of ignorance flows through that organization.

DAR
I know it certainly has at times.

They are not so much pro-environment as they are anti-corporation.

DAR
There is no contradiction in being both at the same time. Sometimes it is appropriate to be anti-corporation. Sometimes corporations that make hundreds of billions in a specific area of endeavor (oil, tobbacco etc.), fund disinformation campaigns in order to keep those funds flowing. This is one of those cases. It's really not a very extraordinary claim. Since they knew who they were going after, I suspect in this instance they planned on having their ducks in a row. You can read Koch's official response here in the New York Times. Perhaps you will find it as profoundly lame as I did.

At first glance I would suspect this is more of there anti-corporate bullshit.

DAR
If you've got something beyond poisoning the well and the genetic fallacy, let's see it.

I would, however, be interested in hearing about it if someone has time to investigate it.

DAR
It's really quite obvious. See lots of support here. And they don't even deny it anyway. Note:

"Koch Industries did not reject Greenpeace’s claims about its support for climate opposition groups but said its report “distorts the environmental record of our companies".

Telegraph

Here is an example of GreenPeace [GM foods]

DAR
Yes, I know much of their anti-GM stuff is crap.

It really breaks down to four main claims, see below. These Koch guys fund anti-global warming public relations groups just like the tobacco industry funded BS echo chambers for years. Sometimes these denier groups even hire the exact same intellectual whores to do it (examples provided upon request).

D.
---------------------
Treehugger.com has a good summary of the story, some of which is

Among the organizations and people funded through the various Koch foundations are:

1) “At least 20 organizations central to the global echo chamber which have repeatedly rebroadcast, referenced and appeared as media spokespeople” in reference to Climategate.

2) In 2007, an astrophysicist to write an article about polar bears which, masquerading as a piece of peer-reviewed literature, attempted to refute the threat to the species due to climate change.

3) A Danish think tank which produced a “dubious study about the Danish wind industry”, rejected by the Danish environment minister, which was then used to challenge President Obama’s support of wind power.

4) Groups which supported a “widely debunked study” which claimed that Spain’s support of renewable energy had lost the country jobs.

Other groups receiving large amounts of funding include: Mercatus Center ($9.25 million, 2005-2008), Americans for Prosperity ($5.18 million 2005-2008), The Heritage Foundation ($3.36 million, 1997-2008), Cato Institute ($5.28 million 1997-2008).

"The 44 page report includes 9 pages of references to mainstream sources of information,..."

Link

I stand firmly by my point. I think it was well stated. I have not provided many examples but I would challenge anyone to look into the activities of greenpeace. They have definitely pissed in their bath-water. I have no issue with being anti-corporation so long as it is within the realm of reason and law. They cross that line consistently. I do not see them as environmentalist. If they cared about the environment they would STUDY the environment--they would learn so as to be in a better position to promote positive change. They would see to it that their leaders understand the impact that science has had on our environment--both the positive and negative. At this point I do not trust greenpeace as a source for anything. Just like McCarthy or Kent Hovind, being an idiots does not make them wrong on all counts, or maybe even most, however it does make them unreliable. At a certain point, as a matter of pragmatism, you must just stop paying mind to those who prove themselves to be untrustworthy. This is, strictly speaking, not an example of a genetic fallacy. I am not rejecting the claim based upon the source. I am simply asking for someone to provide a LEGITIMATE source. In the same since, I would not put much credence in any claim for which the only source is Fox News.

That being said, I must concede that it does appear this is quite an accurate accusation. You are right, it is not surprising nor an extraordinary claim. Thank you for your links, they were quite informative and exactly what I was asking for. I was particularly swayed by Koch's response. Love how they did not bother to DENY the accusation that they are spearheading an anti-global warming campaign of misinformation yet they credit themselves with taking steps to reduce their greenhouse emissions--one would have to wonder why?

kwlyon wrote: At this point I do not trust greenpeace as a source for anything.

vs.

I am not rejecting the claim based upon the source.

DAR
Hmmm. Okay.

I am simply asking for someone to provide a LEGITIMATE source.

DAR
I haven't look into any of the primary sources and haven't even read the Greenpeace report in question. When the claims are this straightforward, well referenced, and it passes the smell test and the guys in question don't even deny it, I tend to place it in the true basket. I read a Media Matters article examining these claims but to my astonishment, I cannot find the bloody thing. Maybe the Koch people nuked it.

yet they credit themselves with taking steps to reduce their greenhouse emissions--one would have to wonder why?

DAR
Well from what I have read about this, and them, they seem to be quite an environmentally aware company. But since the global warming issues has the potential to be so big as to cut their nuts off, funding wise, this may explain why they'll do anything to fight what the green economy is bound to bring; less oil use, carbon taxes, etc.

I used to send money to Greenpeace back around '87. Then years later I discerned that they were pretty stupid on some pretty straightforward issues. They like to fearmonger on the genetic modification of food issue, etc. But they did work to save the whales and they have done some good things even if they have a considerable constituency of crackpots in their midst. PETA is full of poopy heads who get mad when the president swats a fly, but that doesn't mean they don't have a good point about animal suffering and cruelty in our cattle/chicken meat industry.

Exposing massive funding of disinformation campaigns (I know the back ground on a lot of those deniers mentioned in those articles... Tim Ball, Monckton, etc), definitely goes in the good basket.

Also, check out the John Birch Society if you don't know about those guys.

D.

Darrel wrote:

kwlyon wrote: At this point I do not trust greenpeace as a source for anything.

vs.

I am not rejecting the claim based upon the source.

DAR
Hmmm. Okay.

I see the point you are trying to make here....I'm sorry but I can't concede it. There is nothing contradictory here in context. This is an example of what I often refer to as "Naughty Rhetoric". But I must hand it to you, it was exceedingly well delivered:)

Darrel wrote: I read a Media Matters article examining these claims but to my astonishment, I cannot find the bloody thing. Maybe the Koch people nuked it.

It is quite possible.

Darrel wrote: Well from what I have read about this, and them, they seem to be quite an environmentally aware company. But since the global warming issues has the potential to be so big as to cut their nuts off, funding wise, this may explain why they'll do anything to fight what the green economy is bound to bring; less oil use, carbon taxes, etc.

Yes well, we still need oil for some time to come. We will always need oil to a certain extent. They should not cash in their chips but rather invest in new and sustainable technologies. You see, one way or another, regardless of the reality of global warming, oil will cease to be economically viable as our primary source of energy in the near future. This fact is undisputed and well beyond their, or anyone's control.

Darrel wrote:I used to send money to Greenpeace back around '87. Then years later I discerned that they were pretty stupid on some pretty straightforward issues. They like to fearmonger on the genetic modification of food issue, etc. But they did work to save the whales and they have done some good things even if they have a considerable constituency of crackpots in their midst. PETA is full of poopy heads who get mad when the president swats a fly, but that doesn't mean they don't have a good point about animal suffering and cruelty in our cattle/chicken meat industry.

They have done some good. Actually they have done a LOT of good. So has PETA for that matter. However they both have worked extensively to undermine "the system" that they seem to fear so much--the system we all depend on to continue to survive while substantially exceeding the natural carrying capacity. They both seem obsessed with their utopian ideas of how the world "should" be. I think it is this obsession that has so often blinded them to reality and caused quite a lot of confusion and harm. I suppose my biggest criticism is that it's not just a few quack members of the organizations...the quacks are RUNNING the organizations. I could spew hate towards PETA and GreenPeace all day--some of it is probably not deserved. However I have had my fill of them both long ago. The only thing they are really good for at this point is continuing to raise awareness...thus I guess they are good for something.

Darrel wrote: Exposing massive funding of disinformation campaigns (I know the back ground on a lot of those deniers mentioned in those articles... Tim Ball, Monckton, etc), definitely goes in the good basket.

Also, check out the John Birch Society if you don't know about those guys.

D.

I will check them out.

Kevin